'Big Bang Theory' in HDTV on CBS - Page 91 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2701 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vfxproducer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

True they don't mention that detail as that would kill the comedy. Similar to living with your parents when grown. It doesn't matter who owns it, the elevator would have been replaced and or repaired already, per City of Pasadena codes and ordinances! How many apartments have you either lived in or visited that had an elevator explode and not be investigated and repaired? It has to be repaired period! I".

Ah, speaking of killing the comedy....
vfxproducer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2702 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
McDonoughDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I would rather take the stairs for a few flights myself....smile.gif

Peachtree City Golf Cart Rider
McDonoughDawg is offline  
post #2703 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 03:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

Not able to repair an elevator? Really are you serious? Why wouldn't they? It's just a gag to walk the stairs.The school could rebuild the entire apartment complex if they wanted to. There have been some crazy things happen on that campus. The !@#$ students actually did rig a device that looked like a "bomb" inside a large container one time thinking it would be funny. Bomb squad, and Haz Mat was called and 3 hours later at about 4am we cleared the call. Bright minds but dumb as hell as far as using common sense!

Yes, a bomb blew up in the elevator, destroying the entire interior infrastructure, the shaft, everything. The landlord is probably saying it is currently being fixed and taking his time as the cost would mean he would probably have to go out of business to replace all of that.

Why would the school rebuild the stairs if they wanted to? The school has nothing to do with the building. The school does not go around to all the businesses miles and miles away saying, hey we'll fix that for you. Please, get over your whole school obsession. Sure there are some smart people there and they do some good things, but they are not running around fixing everything and they don't own every building every employee lives in.

WilliamR is offline  
post #2704 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 03:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

Cal Tech owns most of the property including houses and apartment buildings around the area. That includes property "miles away". They have sold a lot of them off. Put it this way, they offered to build us a fire station on their land for FREE! The city of course said no thanks.The students and alumni get cheap rent when staying on a school owned apartment building.

No way they own the building Sheldon lives in. If they did it wouldn't still take two of them to live in one apartment to afford it (which they have stated). There would be more employees living there instead of the type of people they have shown living there. Sure Cal Tech owns some buildings but there are thousands and they own a few.

WilliamR is offline  
post #2705 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 04:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

Ah, speaking of killing the comedy....

Don't worry...you just brought it back with that comment, lol! In fact that was almost Leonard-like.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2706 of 2724 Old 05-27-2014, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 98
I didn't mean for that to happen!

I brought up the elevator because I thought in the scheme of things that the elevator is a bigger elephant in the room than most of the other stuff that people have complained about "not making sense"... unfortunately, I proved my point by getting everyone talking about the elevator smile.gif

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #2707 of 2724 Old 05-28-2014, 08:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Spiky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 1,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Wait, there's an elevator?!?
Spiky is online now  
post #2708 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 04:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 154
'Big Bang Theory' Stars Still Without Contracts
By Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter - Jul. 16, 2014

Four months after CBS renewed ratings juggernaut The Big Bang Theory for three additional seasons — through its 10th run — stars Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki and Kaley Cuoco, as well as Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar, still do not have deals to return to the No. 1 comedy among total viewers and adults 18-49.

The massive renewal for the series, from exec producers Chuck Lorre, Bill Prady and Steve Molaro, gives the cast additional leverage to negotiate the hefty raises they've been after. Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that there has been no movement in the negotiations, which began in September, and a deal is expected to be reached before season eight begins. The cast also is expected to return to work on the show's Burbank set at the end of the month when production begins, regardless of whether or not they have new contracts — unlike the Modern Family cast, which staged a walkout as they renegotiated their deals with studio 20th Century Fox Television. Warner Bros. Television declined to comment.

Multiple Emmy winner Parsons (who again is nominated this year), Galecki and Cuoco are all seeking big salary increases. Sources told THR in September that the trio, who currently earn $325,000 per episode, are seeking up to $1 million per half-hour. They're expected to negotiate together; Helberg and Nayyar also are looking for increases and will negotiate together. Emmy nominee Mayim Bialik and Melissa Rauch have already inked new deals with WBTV, with both securing raises.

The Big Bang Theory contract talks are expected to be a hot topic of discussion Thursday during CBS Entertainment chairman Nina Tassler's session at the Television Critics Association's summer press tour. The series is again returning this month to Comic-Con in San Diego, where for the second year in a row the panel will consist of the show's writers.

Meanwhile, Molaro inked his first overall deal with Warner Bros. Television — a rich three-year pact in which he'll develop new projects for the studio and continue to serve as showrunner and exec producer on the series created by Lorre and Prady. Lorre inked a four-year overall deal with the studio in 2012.

The series concluded its seventh season in May with a cliffhanger in which Parsons' Sheldon was poised to leave town on a train after being overwhelmed by the number of changes in his life.

Ahead of the finale, Molaro told THR that his decision to end the series on a cliffhanger was "not at all" impacted by the cast's lack of contracts. "We're making the best episodes that we can come up with. I have to move forward assuming everyone is going to be there. I have no reason to think they won't be. That wasn't a factor."

Big Bang Theory has been TV's No. 1 comedy among total viewers since the 2010-11 season. Season to date, Big Bang Theory is averaging almost a whopping 20 million viewers per week, up 4 percent year-over-year, and an impressive 6.1 rating among adults under 50. The series also is a hit in syndication on TBS, with repeats often topping some of the Big Four broadcast networks' original fare and helping that network to build its comedy brand. The series has earned multiple Emmy nominations for best comedy but has yet to take home that trophy.

The three-season renewal could spell the end of Big Bang Theory, with Molaro telling THR that he plans to move forward along with Lorre. "[Season] 10 is the end unless we're told otherwise," he said in April. "These are decisions that are so far away I can't really even think about that. I have no choice but to move forward … it's so far away (laughs). The mindset is it's going to be the 10, and then we'll see what happens after that."

Securing Big Bang Theory's future was a top priority for CBS, which last season bade farewell to Monday staple How I Met Your Mother. CBS recently scored rights to Thursday night NFL games, pushing Big Bang Theory to Mondays for the first few weeks of season eight, before it returns to Thursdays.

Big Bang Theory will return Monday, Sept. 22, before moving back to Thursdays starting Oct. 30.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...s-still-719147

WilliamR is offline  
post #2709 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
replayrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NY- The tax State
Posts: 3,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 102
^ Interesting.
Let's see if we have any diva's in the cast...

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...."

replayrob is online now  
post #2710 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NickTheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by replayrob View Post
^ Interesting.
Let's see if we have any diva's in the cast...
Sounds like we do, but . . .
NickTheGreat is offline  
post #2711 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 98
If someone is on a TV show that is making money for the network and that someone wants a big raise, he is a "diva"... but if that same person worked for a traditional company and asked for a raise, people would say "good for you"...

Either the show is making money or it isn't... if it isn't making money, it probably would be canceled. Since it was extended rather than canceled, then it must be doing well... so why shouldn't the people that everyone tunes in to see week after week be justified in asking for and even holding out for money?

We can argue all day how much a "star" is "worth" but if the money is there from revenue generated by the show... seems like the people doing work on the show have a right to ask for a piece of that revenue.
Pagali, Ph8te and WilliamR like this.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #2712 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ph8te's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
If someone is on a TV show that is making money for the network and that someone wants a big raise, he is a "diva"... but if that same person worked for a traditional company and asked for a raise, people would say "good for you"...

Either the show is making money or it isn't... if it isn't making money, it probably would be canceled. Since it was extended rather than canceled, then it must be doing well... so why shouldn't the people that everyone tunes in to see week after week be justified in asking for and even holding out for money?

We can argue all day how much a "star" is "worth" but if the money is there from revenue generated by the show... seems like the people doing work on the show have a right to ask for a piece of that revenue.


People love counting other peoples money. Wonder if they would feel the same way if the tables were turned? Oh you asked for a raise, lets see if others that are making less than you and strangers think you deserve a raise
Ph8te is online now  
post #2713 of 2724 Old 07-17-2014, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vfxproducer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
We can argue all day how much a "star" is "worth" but if the money is there from revenue generated by the show... seems like the people doing work on the show have a right to ask for a piece of that revenue.
Abso-frakin-lutely! Goes for the below-the-line as well. Nothing more irritating than hearing "We got renewed another year - but next year we want to cut your department budget 20%". Which happens ALL THE TIME. Did you like last season? Looked good right? Everything worked well and was on time and was part of the overall production value of the show that the audience responds to, right? Well you don't get that for 20% less.
mike1812 and WilliamR like this.
vfxproducer is offline  
post #2714 of 2724 Old 07-18-2014, 07:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NickTheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
If someone is on a TV show that is making money for the network and that someone wants a big raise, he is a "diva"... but if that same person worked for a traditional company and asked for a raise, people would say "good for you"...

Either the show is making money or it isn't... if it isn't making money, it probably would be canceled. Since it was extended rather than canceled, then it must be doing well... so why shouldn't the people that everyone tunes in to see week after week be justified in asking for and even holding out for money?

We can argue all day how much a "star" is "worth" but if the money is there from revenue generated by the show... seems like the people doing work on the show have a right to ask for a piece of that revenue.
Don't know if you aimed this at me, but we'll have to see. If they triple the pay of the main actors, the money has to come from somewhere. Odds are they can do it just fine, and more power to them all.
NickTheGreat is offline  
post #2715 of 2724 Old 07-18-2014, 11:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post
Don't know if you aimed this at me, but we'll have to see. If they triple the pay of the main actors, the money has to come from somewhere. Odds are they can do it just fine, and more power to them all.
Wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular... just the general backlash that usually follows announcements of actors wanting more money for a popular show.

It's one thing if an actor is a "diva" and wants the truck backed up before they show up for episode one of a new series... but a show running for 5+ years that gets extended to 10 years because it is that popular and making that much coin for the studio... seems like that's the exact scenario tailor-made for actors to ask for a cut of the proceeds.

The network was happy in years 1-5 paying for a actors on a show they didn't know how well it would fare... so when the coin is rolling in and they know it is good, and they have the guaranteed money coming in to run the show several more years... that's where the money comes from to give the actors and other folk on the show raises.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #2716 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 04:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Production On ‘Big Bang Theory’ Pushed Over Cast Contract Negotiations As Actors Near New Deals
By Nellie Andreeva, Deadline.com - Jul. 30, 2014

There is no agreement yet in the contract negotiations between the original cast of The Big Bang Theory and Warner Bros TV, leading to the studio’s decision to push the production start date for Season 8, originally slated for today. “Due to ongoing contract negotiations, production on The Big Bang Theory — which was originally scheduled to begin today — has been postponed,” WBTV said in a statement. I hear the postponement is for one day, and the situation would be evaluated day by day as the two sides continue to negotiate and are close to deals, something that could happen as early as today.

While Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar worked during the 2010 salary renegotiations that also dragged on over the summer, they were under deals back then. The situation is different this time as the quintet’s contracts all expired at the end of last season. The only Big Bang cast members who have deals and would’ve showed up today are Melissa Rauch and Mayim Bialik, who renegotiated their contracts last fall.

There has been progress, with negotiations ramping up over the past week though the gap between what the actors are seeking and have been offered on the episodic fee and back-end side has not been bridged just yet. At TCA last two weeks ago, CBS chairman Nina Tassler did not sound worried. “We’re feeling very confident that everything will work out,” she said of the negotiations. “These deals manage to get done somehow miraculously year after year.” Big Bang plays a major piece in CBS’ fall plans, with an hourlong premiere on September 22 leading to the debut of new action drama Scorpion, often referred to as a procedural take on Big Bang. There is no immediate danger of missing the premiere date.

The Big Bang negotiations are under extra scrutiny in light of the ongoing takeover attempt of WBTV parent Time Warner by 21st Century Fox. Big Bang is one the biggest singular TV assets of the company, estimated to generate up to $2 billions in profits. Nobody is talking, but industry expectations are that, when the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed, the trio of of Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco would each cross the Friends mark of $1 million an episode and will significantly increase their current back-end stake of 0.25 points. As they did the last time, Helberg and Nayyar are said to be negotiating together.

http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/big-...-negotiations/

WilliamR is offline  
post #2717 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 109
IMO, this is so stupid. How in the world can the studio be balking at paying basically whatever they want? IM(further)O, the main 5 should all be getting $1MM per episode so the way I see it the studio is getting a deal by possibly only having to pay three of them that kind of dough. This show is arguably the strongest ratings wise of anything on television right now plus it's syndicated at Seinfield like frequency back in the day. I understand the concept of profit margins but with the bank the studio is pulling and has been pulling for years on this show, to allow for a work stoppage now over this...like I said....stupid.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2718 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post
IMO, this is so stupid. How in the world can the studio be balking at paying basically whatever they want? IM(further)O, the main 5 should all be getting $1MM per episode so the way I see it the studio is getting a deal by possibly only having to pay three of them that kind of dough. This show is arguably the strongest ratings wise of anything on television right now plus it's syndicated at Seinfield like frequency back in the day. I understand the concept of profit margins but with the bank the studio is pulling and has been pulling for years on this show, to allow for a work stoppage now over this...like I said....stupid.
Well, I can see both side of it:

The Studios:

The studios take all the risks when a show first starts. All those development costs are amortized through sometimes multiple seasons depending upon how expensive the show is to make initially. Further, most studios are lucky if 1 in 10 shows make it more than 3 or 4 seasons, much less the much rarer event of the kind of success BBT has had. The result is, if the studio can't capitalize on that success the small number of times that it comes along, they're less likely to take risks on shows that might be more out of the box because they can't easily pay for a failure with a huge success. In addition, they have to calculate whether the networks will be able to pay those extra costs and still make money off the show themselves. Finally, the studios are publicly held companies with stock holders that want the greatest return on their investments. Therefore, the studios are obligated to seek the most profitable means of doing business. To do anything else could mean a CEO or members of the board being voted out by those very same stockholders.

The Talent:

Obviously, if a show has become a smash success, those people that the audience sees and embraces want to be rewarded. Actors often since much smaller, less rewarding deals at the start of a show because it's not known if the show will actually pay for itself. So, when the show does become a success and the contracts start expiring, the salary negotiations start - and the actors are going to want a piece of potentially lucrative action. After all, very often, those actors ARE the show from the audience perspective.

So, yes, it seems like a no-brainer to pay the talent what they want, but the studios have to consider a lot more than that one show. It's their business as a whole they have to consider. The actors aren't the only players in the game.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #2719 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 08:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Well, I can see both side of it:

The Studios:

The studios take all the risks when a show first starts. All those development costs are amortized through sometimes multiple seasons depending upon how expensive the show is to make initially. Further, most studios are lucky if 1 in 10 shows make it more than 3 or 4 seasons, much less the much rarer event of the kind of success BBT has had. The result is, if the studio can't capitalize on that success the small number of times that it comes along, they're less likely to take risks on shows that might be more out of the box because they can't easily pay for a failure with a huge success. In addition, they have to calculate whether the networks will be able to pay those extra costs and still make money off the show themselves. Finally, the studios are publicly held companies with stock holders that want the greatest return on their investments. Therefore, the studios are obligated to seek the most profitable means of doing business. To do anything else could mean a CEO or members of the board being voted out by those very same stockholders.

The Talent:

Obviously, if a show has become a smash success, those people that the audience sees and embraces want to be rewarded. Actors often since much smaller, less rewarding deals at the start of a show because it's not known if the show will actually pay for itself. So, when the show does become a success and the contracts start expiring, the salary negotiations start - and the actors are going to want a piece of potentially lucrative action. After all, very often, those actors ARE the show from the audience perspective.

So, yes, it seems like a no-brainer to pay the talent what they want, but the studios have to consider a lot more than that one show. It's their business as a whole they have to consider. The actors aren't the only players in the game.

Like I said, I understand profit margins and agree with what you said. But this show is printing money and would have long recouped it's development costs among those of some of the failed shows also while the actors were "underpaid" so to speak. Furthermore, had they agreed to terms at the first of the season they probably would have had an even stronger deal with happy actors. By failing to make a deal, now they are in a position to have to possibly make even more concessions thus further reducing margins. Not to mention possibly creating tensions with the cast and crew and also possibly bad feelings among the viewership. I'm going pretty far with this I'll admit but my point is really, why take a chance on allowing it to get to that?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2720 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 98
I get all the stuff about networks and risk-taking and amortizing cost over multiple seasons... but why should actors on a successful show have to lose out on money because the network has some other failures that they can't pay for without profit from the good show?

If the actors are on a show that fails, the network stops paying them... If the actor can't get work because of being associated with the bad show OR missed work because of being on contract, the network doesn't later reimburse said actor from profits on a good show, right? The actor takes a risk too... to be part of that show and not look at other gigs. Networks notoriously don't let popular actors out of contracts to do another show, guest appearance, or film when their stock rises...

So, when the actor is on a good show that is bringing in money... it really isn't the concern of the actor (or others on the show for that matter) that the network needs money for other failed endeavors.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #2721 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
I get all the stuff about networks and risk-taking and amortizing cost over multiple seasons... but why should actors on a successful show have to lose out on money because the network has some other failures that they can't pay for without profit from the good show?

If the actors are on a show that fails, the network stops paying them... If the actor can't get work because of being associated with the bad show OR missed work because of being on contract, the network doesn't later reimburse said actor from profits on a good show, right? The actor takes a risk too... to be part of that show and not look at other gigs. Networks notoriously don't let popular actors out of contracts to do another show, guest appearance, or film when their stock rises...

So, when the actor is on a good show that is bringing in money... it really isn't the concern of the actor (or others on the show for that matter) that the network needs money for other failed endeavors.

Not to mention, often times it's not the actor but the scripting.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2722 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bpeacock22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
bpeacock22 is offline  
post #2723 of 2724 Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 109
I just heard (on ET) that parsons is supposedly asking for more than Galecki or Cuoco. Only because I like a good conspiracy theory, do you think the engagement and Sheldon leaving was all written into the script in anticipation of contract stalls? And I'll go as far as to suggest that with Parson's supposedly asking for more, is this his ploy to "strike while the iron is hot" in an attempt to get his own show? Or maybe it was discussed long ago that Parson's would be in this asking place and they were already prepping for his departure for his own show. Just thinking out loud.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2724 of 2724 Old Today, 04:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 154
I am not sure they all deserve the same. Perhaps Parsons and Galecki but I don't think Raj is at the level of comedy and acting the others are at. I hope they just get it settled soon so they can start filming already.

WilliamR is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

Tags
The Big Bang Theory The Complete Fifth Season

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off